Do you think the ICAEW rebranding was money well spent?

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

The ICAEW have published a jolly wee promotional video outlining (albeit very briefly) its foundation, founding fathers and place in the modern world.

I am pleased to see that phrase "chartered accountant" has been used.

However, it also claims that it was founded in the UK; is that entirely accurate given that Scotland has its own institute, and that the video shows only England and Wales in red (symbolising the region that the ICAEW was founded in)?

Monday, May 13, 2013

It is time once again for members of the ICAEW to vote on the AGM resolutions, included within which is the annual increase in subscriptions (this time 3.1%).

Whether you think an increase is justified or not, I urge you to vote.

I would note that despite the fact that many private companies and public ones have resisted increasing their charges over the past few years, the ICAEW without fail continues to increase its subscriptions; almost as though it feels that it has a God given right to do so (or could it be something to do with the enormous hole in its pension fund?).

Hence I have voted against such an increase.

Despite the increases in subscriptions every year, last year the turnout was shameful; less than 6% turnout!

"Unsurprisingly of those members of the ICAEW that could be bothered to
vote, a significant percentage (almost 20%) voted against an increase in
the annual subscriptions.

Accountancy Age reports that of the nearly 8,000 members that voted, 19.8% voted against an increase.

The ICAEW has over 138,000 members worldwide, the turnout of less than
6% is a disgrace and shows an alarming disconnect between the bunker in
Moorgate and the membership who live and work in the real world."

There is currently a lively discussion on a Linkedin thread about the fee increase. Given that people feel so strongly about the issue, for heaven's sake vote!

Friday, May 10, 2013

"Thanks for everyone who voted for me in #ICAEW Council elections. Unfortunately looks like the vote needs to be re-run though."

Well done lads!

I am surprised that the ICAEW screwed this up, they have been so fastidious in the past wrt ensuring that things are run according to their rules; as I discovered 11 Jan 2007 when I tried to stand:

"My thanks to The Times, which has come out in support of my candidacy for the ICAEW Council elections:

"Ken
Frost has found one Croydon accountant, so it’s nine to go. As I wrote
the other day, Frost, a long-standing critic of the accountants’
professional body in England and Wales, wants to stand in elections to
its council. But according to the peculiar rules of the ICAEW, he needs
ten nominations first from members of his local association. One has
come forward, he tells me, and I may be able to put him in touch with
another, if Herne Hill in South London is deemed sufficiently local. The
ICAEW insists the rules must be observed in all cases. Frost must run!"

"In November the ICAEW wrote to all members, informing them that Croydon had no representation from members "not in practice".

"Election
to the vacancy will therefore be 'assured' for a member not in practice
provided one or more such candidates come forward..."

Election procedure 18 states:

"To
redress the under-representation on Council of members not in practice
and, in particular, of members in business, the Council has agreed that,
for the years 1995-2007 inclusive, it will 'assure' one seat per
constituency for a member not in practice..."

Well, I am not
in practice, and I am in business. I offered to stand, and advised the
ICAEW as such; but noted that although I know many ICAEW members
nationally who would sign my nomination, I knew no one in Croydon.

Despite this, they refused to notify members of my wish to stand.

Given
that they could not have possibly known, before nominations were in, as
to whether there would have been a non practising member standing, and
given that they were asking for non practising members to stand, I
wonder why they did not help me inform the members of my wish to stand?"

Regarding the 2013 shambles, please can someone let me know what the problem was, and how much a re-run will cost?

"An ICAEW spokeperson told Taxation there had been errors in some
nominations across four constituencies: London, Manchester, the North
West and Essex. They were not spotted until after the election, when it
was decided that the fairest solution would be to rerun the elections.

The move could mean the candidates who won on Tuesday lose their
newly gained places unless the losing candidates agree to stand down and
allow the victors to be returned unopposed. Candidates will have to get
their vote out for a second time if their election is contested."

"FOUR OF TEN ICAEW Council elections will have to be re-run after the process was botched.The four constituencies: South Essex; London; Manchester; and North
West, ran elections to join the ICAEW that had flaws in the process.

Nominations were incorrectly made in the four constituencies. Those
putting forward nominations must be fully-qualified ICAEW members, and
be based within the constituency - it is understood that nominations
were made that failed to meet these criteria, and were not picked up
during the election process.

Michael Izza, ICAEW chief executive and returning officer for the elections, has declared the elections for these constituencies void and will be re-run.

Members ‘incorrectly' voted into council in the four constituencies will be able to attend the June council meeting as observers, said an ICAEW spokesman. The re-run should be completed by AugustThe cost of re-running the elections, which will involve the Electoral Reform Society, is currently estimated at £10,000."

"IT'S SOMETIMES SAID that the littlest things that
can infuriate ICAEW members about their institute. Well this time, it
seems that not receiving their annual membership cards is leaving a
gaping hole in their wallets, as such.

The cards were due to hit members' doormats at the start of the year,
but the ICAEW rejected the initial proofs "due to quality issues, which
took time to be resolved and therefore were sent out later".

Arch institute agitator Ken Frost, among others, have voiced their displeasure at proceedings on the ICAEW LinkedIn group.
In turn, the discussion has morphed into one giving the ICAEW a bit of a
kicking around their ‘communication and social media strategy'.

In fairness, council member Malcolm Bacchus has used the discussion thread to try and answer some the questions raised.

Still, interesting for TS to see a moan about little white pieces of plastic transform into another institute rant."

At face value TS may have a point about the "littlest of things". However, "trivial" issues such as late membership cards,
that do not bear the phrase "chartered accountant", sometimes highlight
deeper problems/issues.

The fact that so many people have made an effort to post their views indicates that they too have concerns about how the ICAEW manages itself
and uses our subscriptions, and have used the Linkedin thread as means to raise them.

Sometimes the best way to elicit a discussion and response is to poke at something, even its soft underbelly.

Thursday, May 02, 2013

"I'll try to answer
some of this, but the last time I tried any form of answer to a query in
this group I had people jump down my throat with phrases like
"Institute lackey" and being generally rude. So I gave up - it is
probably one of the reasons why others are also conspicuously quiet on
what could be a useful place for a dialogue.

Anyway here goes. The issue was raised on Council today following the
points made here. The delay in sending out membership cards arose
because the cards printed (in accordance with the normal timing) were
found, on arrival, to be of unacceptable quality. They were returned
and a new supplier had to be found and new cards printed.

I would agree however that they could (should?) have been sent out with
an explanation of why there was a delay although that would have
marginally added to the cost. Perhaps the solution would have been to
email members with an apology once it was known that cards would be late
- but that is something now learnt.

As for not having cards, the issue is kept under review but the general
feeling that we get from members is that the cards are worth having.
The comments here that they are not (although even here that is not a
unanimous view) is not representative of the membership as a whole at
present. Accepted however that things may change in future. Members who
do not want a membership card can opt out of having one. So please, if
you feel they are not worthwhile, please do so, although please be
aware - see below - that they can be helpful if you ever intend to visit
Moorgate Place.

The cards are useful in ensuring that people using the chartered
accountants' hall membership facilities are indeed members and they
remind members of their membership number which is requested when they
use those facilities. There are also telephone numbers on the back of
the card which some members find helpful. And some members, believe it
or not, just like them because they feel that as a member of an
organisation one should have a membership card! As for not including
the words "The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales"
- this is a card for our own use, so it really doesn't need to remind
us of that.

Useful comments in this discussion and, rest assured they have been
taken on board and lessons learnt, even if you disagree with the
answers."